Wakilii

Lwamafa and 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2018)

Court of Appeal · [2021] UGCA 40 · 2021 Appeal Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Consolidated criminal appeals against conviction and sentence from the High Court Anti-Corruption Division
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; convictions and sentences of Appellants No.1 and No.2 upheld but ordered to run concurrently; compensation and public-office disqualification orders upheld; appeals of deceased appellants abated.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal heard consolidated appeals against conviction and sentence by four officials convicted in connection with the fraudulent payment of public funds purportedly as legal costs in HCCS No.1029 of 98. The appeals against the two deceased appellants abated. The Court held the appeal succeeded only in part: it was wrong for the trial court to combine consecutive and concurrent sentences, which causes confusion in execution and prejudices the appellants. The sentences against Appellants No.1 (Lwamafa) and No.2 (Kunsa) were upheld but ordered to run concurrently. The compensation orders and the orders barring the appellants from holding public office were upheld. A fully reasoned judgment was reserved.

Facts

Appellant No.1 was Permanent Secretary and Accounting Officer of the Ministry of Public Service; Appellant No.2 performed the duties of Commissioner of the Compensation Department; Appellant No.3 was Principal Accountant in charge of Pensions; and Appellant No.4 was a private legal practitioner with Marble Law Firm. Retrenched civil servants had obtained a consent judgment against the Attorney General in HCCS No.1029 of 98 for pension arrears and later damages. The bill of costs was scheduled for taxation but the advocate from Marble Law Firm was rejected as not being on the record, and the costs were never taxed. Nonetheless the Ministry paid UGX 15,487,040,200 to Hall and Partners as purported taxed costs. After the plaintiffs complained, investigations established that various officials were involved in processing, paying and receiving the questioned funds. The appellants were indicted, tried and convicted of offences including diversion of public resources, conspiracy to defraud, theft and forgery, and appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence and wrongly convicted the appellants on insufficient evidence.
  2. Whether the trial judge erred in ordering Appellants No.1 and 2 to compensate government where A4 admitted receiving all the money.
  3. Whether the custodial sentences imposed were excessively harsh and severe, including the use of both consecutive and concurrent sentences.

Orders

  • The criminal appeals against Appellant No.3 (Christopher Obey) and Appellant No.4 (Bob Kasango) abate due to their deaths.
  • The appeal succeeds in part.
  • The sentences of imprisonment against Appellant No.1 (Jimmy Lwamafa) and Appellant No.2 (Kiwanuka Kunsa) are upheld and shall be served concurrently.
  • The orders for compensation are upheld.
  • The orders barring the appellants from holding public office are upheld.

Key headnotes

Sentencing — Combining Consecutive and Concurrent Sentences
It is wrong for a trial court to employ both consecutive and concurrent sentences for the same offender, as this causes confusion in how the sentences are to be executed by the correctional services and may seriously prejudice the convict.
Appeal — Abatement on Death of Appellant
A criminal appeal abates upon the death of the appellant, and the court will refer to a deceased appellant only where his name forms part of a wider discussion relevant to the surviving appeals.

Legislation cited (7)

  • Anti-Corruption Act 2009 s.6
  • Penal Code Act s.309
  • Penal Code Act s.254
  • Penal Code Act s.261
  • Penal Code Act s.342
  • Penal Code Act s.349
  • Penal Code Act s.390
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.